On April 15, the commander of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI), Gen. Moeldoko, was interviewed by Sujadi Siswo, a correspondent for Singapore’s Channel NewsAsia. The interview was conducted in Indonesian and later on translated.
At a certain point, Moeldoko was asked about the decision to name a warship after two Indonesian marines, Usman and Harun, who were hanged in Singapore after the 1965 MacDonald House bombing.
Moeldoko answered in Indonesian: “Saya pikir itu sebuah keputusan kami bahwa Usman-Harun tetap penamaan itu dan sekali lagi mohon maaf bahwa apa yang telah kami pikirkan tidak sama sekali berkaitan dengan membangun emosi kembali.”
The translation would be: “I think it is our decision that Usman-Harun will stay as the name [of the ship] and, I beg your pardon, we have never thought that this would reawaken emotions.”
However, the word “maaf” was translated by Channel NewsAsia as “regret,” as if Moeldoko was offering an apology.
Soon after the airing of the interview, Singaporean Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a statement that “I welcome General Moeldoko’s apology as a constructive gesture to improve bilateral defense ties between our two countries.”
But the Indonesian public and some lawmakers saw things differently. They were shocked when hearing that Moeldoko had made an “apology” to Singapore, as this could be seen as a betrayal of Indonesian heroes who have sacrificed their lives for the country. Susaningtyas Nefo Handayani Kertopati, a member of the House of Representatives, was quick to criticize Moeldoko’s “apology.”
When Moeldoko used the word “maaf” it seems that he wanted to be polite to his audience, as the interview would be broadcasted in Singapore. For Indonesians, especially Javanese people like Moeldoko, often the word “maaf” is used as a matter of politeness before making any statement perceived as strong.
The TNI chief himself has since made clear that he had not apologized to the Singaporean government for Indonesia’s decision to name a warship KRI Usman-Harun. There is no official resentment about the name in Indonesia. On the contrary, Moeldoko stressed that the name stays.
What is particularly interesting about this incident is how quickly the Singaporean defense minister reacted to the interview. He made a swift statement on the assumption that Moeldoko had indeed apologized, without verifying the accurateness of the report.
How could such a senior Singaporean government official only rely on a news report for a statement on an important issue affecting relations with Indonesia? Why not use diplomatic channels instead?
The minister should have asked his Indonesian counterpart for clarification before making a statement that he welcomed Moeldoko’s apology.
In addition, the minister should have asked himself whether the TNI chief would be the appropriate official from Indonesia to offer an apology for the naming of warship.
So why was the minister so hasty in welcoming the general’s “apology”? Is it because Singapore is very keen on resuming normal military ties with Indonesia?
But if that is the case, then Singapore should not have been looking for an apology in the first place.
No officials in Indonesia would dare to offer such an apology. In the democratic society that Indonesia has become, the official in question would be faced with public uproar and suffer irreparable damage to his image.
We can also rest assured that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration will not be ready to offer any apology for KRI Usman-Harun as his term will end soon. The administration will not want to look weak.
In other words, Singapore shouldn’t be expecting any apology in this case.
Hikmahanto Juwana
is a professor of international law at the University of Indonesia.
Dari The Jakarta Globe Rabu, 23 April 2014
